UK government has let women down

Just before Christmas, when the UK government was still congratulating themselves on 'protecting science', they made an announcement which was met with unanimous dismay by a very small segment of the science and engineering population: women.

When I started at Imperial College London only 12 per cent of my electrical engineering course were women - still twice the proportion studying mechanical engineering. We were told we were brave pioneers, to be followed by tidal waves of women - as had happened in medicine, law, accountancy.

Well, 25 years later the proportion of women studying engineering is exactly the same.

This represents a loss in a number of areas. There is loss to the country in a talent pool half the size it could be. There is the loss to society of the types of engineering achievements that might come from a non male perspective. And there is the loss to women in not having entry to these rewarding careers.

Of nearly 13 million women working in the UK, only 5.3 per cent are employed in STEM (science, technology, engineering, maths) occupations, while almost one third of the UK's 15.4 million male employees work in these three key areas.

But I also believe there is an additional less tangible but hugely important impact: science and engineering will never have the position they demand and need at the heart of our society and our economy if it remains the preserve of such a narrow section of society - white, male, mainly middle class.

Now it is not as if I am the first one to say this. There are many organisations doing excellent work to encourage girls into STEM, and retain them in STEM careers - as there have been for decades. As a student I benefitted from a Women in Science and Engineering (WISE) scholarship. Imperial had a woman's officer.

And many individual scientists and engineers are also keen to help redress the gender balance. During my career I was fortunate to be mentored by male leaders keen to encourage women in STEM. But it was never their absolute priority. Their absolute priority was getting the damn thing to work, whatever the damn thing of that particular organisation was.

But the challenge of redressing the gender balance in STEM needs to be the absolute priority of someone. We know barriers are complex and operate on a number of different social, cultural and economic levels.

The Roberts Review suggested that success in achieving gender balance appears to be self-perpetuating in as much as areas of the science curricula with relatively high proportions of female science teachers attracted more girls.

For example whilst women now make up two thirds of biology science students and 42 per cent of chemistry students, the participation by women in undergraduate physics, mathematics and engineering & technology remains low and static.

Only 1 per cent of physics professors are women. Throughout the STEM professions, two thirds of women do not return to STEM work after a maternity break.

So in 2004 UKRC was set up as a central point of leadership "to improve significantly the participation and position of women in Science, Engineering & Technology (SET) occupations in industry, research, academia and the public services, to benefit the future productivity of the UK and the lifetime earnings and career aspirations of women".

In the last two years UKRC advised over 750 SET employers and organisations, reaching over one million people, as well as directly providing information and resources to over 6000 individual women. UKRC has signed up 150 organisations to their CEO Charter to improve SET opportunities for women. It is too early to judge if this has made a significant contribution to eradicating the gender gap but the Cabinet Office's own Social Return on Investment assessment estimated it delivered £5.27 of value for every £1.

Now BIS says they will be "embedding and mainstreaming" best practice "through a number of the programmes we fund, and those of the partners with which we work. This will build on the wider work of the government to promote inclusive workplaces."

But BIS partners, excellent in many ways, reflect science not society. So the Royal Society has only 7 per cent women fellows. The Royal Academy of Engineering just 2.9 per cent. And then there's the newly formed Space Leadership Council. Established in May by the minister David Willetts with 27 members, it does not have a single female member.

The previous Labour government was also committed to mainstreaming gender in policy as part of the response to the 'SET Fair' report in 2002: the same report that recommended the establishment of the UKRC. The decision to withdraw funding for the UKRC now leaves government policy on encouraging diversity within science and engineering looking very thin indeed.

To quote one dismayed woman scientist: "the proposal looks like a return to the mish-mash of groups independently re-inventing the wheel, including elliptical wheels, hexagonal wheels and wheels not actually attached to an axle, that represented policy before. To replace existing measures with improved measures is progress; to return to policies known to fail demonstrates either lack of competence or lack of good faith, and certainly does not represent good value for money."

The economic argument is vital. The need for reductions in spending is not disputed, but the UK research council's £2.5m budget (0.05 per cent of the BIS science budget) goes to help half the population access the skills underpinning the new industries essential to our economic future. What assessment has BIS placed on the value of the UK Resource Centre for Women in Science Engineering and Technology's work? Is it looking for a more-value-for-money alternative to the Resource Centre and if so who are they consulting as they do so? Does it believe that increased participation in STEM can be achieved without a central resource or is increasing participation no longer a priority? If it is a priority what concrete action will they be taking beyond recycling gender equality "mainstreaming"? What will happen to the valuable expertise and independent advice that the Resource Centre embodies?

This government's cuts have already been shown to disproportionately impact women. The abolition of the Educational Maintenance Allowance and withdrawal of public funding from 80 per cent of HE will not going to help make STEM professions more diverse.

As shadow minister for innovation and science I will be holding the government to account on its commitment to addressing the gender imbalance in the STEM.

I was president of the Women's Engineering Society during the time that UKRC was being set up. WES has existed for almost 100 years (well, 92) and has always expected to make itself "no longer ncessary", at the point where women are really part of the engineering profession. WES is as vital as ever, but is unfunded. I myself am deeply involved in sustainability and think that the softer female approach to alternative appropriate engineering is about to come into its own. The UKRC needs to continue until a difference is made!

Rosa Michaelson
on January 11, 2011 10:48 AM

Thank you for this useful precis about the removal of funding from Women and STEM initiatives. I am also concerned that there is growing anti-equality equality rhetoric in the UK which gives support to a particular bias in government spending and will add to the burdens facing women across the board during the next few years.

I was stunned by the news that funding for the UKRC has been cut. Fair enough, people keep pointing fingers at "positive discrimination", which is not what UKRC and other women in SET organisations do. They are about setting fair standards. This should be about making sure the right person, and in my mind is the most qualified, person for the job gets the job. In our current situation, I do not see this happenning. What I do often see, and I gag everytime I meet an incompetent person up the totem pole, is men get jobs they are not qualified to do. I cannot tell you how many men I work with in the built environment, who cannot spell, fail to plan, and ultimately lose a lot of money due to thoughtless decision making. But they get the opportunities because they are men, they look right. Is this fair? UKRC has set up a powerful network of women who can help each other, and help break into this male dominated network.

would be engineer
on January 11, 2011 1:20 PM

I contacted UKRC 3 years ago when I was nearing the end of my electrical installation courge and asked them for help and advice; I wanted to do some on the job trainign with an electrical firm. I got details of an organisation which I became a menber of who then did nothing for me whatsover ie passed me no work nor contacts. Fortunately my other career took off and I was able to abandon my would be career in a mans world. This is anecdotal in that I am just one person and it was maybe bad luck that their advice did not pay off, but I cannot vouch for their effectiveness personally nor the organisation they put me in touch with (getsetforwomen).
The bottom line is after 25 years things are no better and they wont be without legislation or maybe even posiitve discrimination for women to enter these male dominant careers.

I agree that the end of BIS funding to the UKRC is a regressive step (one of many by the current government). I've posted the email I sent to my MP here - it would be great if other people got in touch with their MPs and/or the government about this: http://bit.ly/e8fksp. Maybe a bit of pressure will make a difference.

Jane Butcher
on January 12, 2011 11:46 AM

Thank you for your strong endorsement of our work, Chi, and advocating so coherently for planned, resourced and co-ordinated activity to build gender equality in SET.

As you show, at the UKRC we have built up a strong track record of expertise and achievement, which includes working alongside partners in the public and private sector, and with a wide community of individuals, organisations and groups working in SET. We agree with the comments here: the work is vital, the economic argument is key, there is much that needs to be done.

We are of course concerned. The government has expressed its commitment to diversity, but how will this be led? What will be the reach, incentives and direction? Who will be consulted and involved? How will the priorities be identified and measured?

We have a few significant projects which enable us to continue working beyond March 2011: we will build on this and we hope readers of this blog will stay in touch with us as we continue to work with employers and organisations to build women’s profile and careers.

Our aim: to play an active role working with government and other partners to build gender equality in SET in the UK. Anyone wanting more information, please contact us at info @ theukrc.org (remove the spaces). We look forward to hearing from you.

Ruth Wilson, the UKRC
on January 12, 2011 11:56 AM

I'd like to join Jane Butcher (Assistant Director at the UKRC) in thanking you Chi for your support, and the others who have commented here and elsewhere (in blogs and forums and through letters and emails).

I'd like to send a message to 'would be engineer' in particular - do get in touch with me (r.wilson at theukrc.org) . We have helped hundreds of women over the last few years and sometimes it doesn't work out - we are always keen to learn from this.

I am absolutely delighted that the Government has cut funding for UKRC and think it utterly hypocritical that a Labour MP who has never attended any women in engineering event I'm aware of is sounding off as though UKRC actually did some good -her government betrayed everyone who took part in the Greenfield Report. I would like to see proof that all the organisations such as WES; WISE; AWISE; Daphne Jackson Trust; MentorSET and many others are thriving after the years of UKRC 'resourcing'? I have copious evidence of the fact that they were in fact hostile to anyone who might challenge their desire to REPLACE not RESOURCE the women in SET community.
Far too many of those who sound off about women in engineering and technology have no qualifications in the area and no experience in industry to enable them to legitimately represent those they claim to. Its strange that the MP claims to be campaigning for the group to improve the number of women in engineering while writing in a science magazine. I bet I won't read any sob stories about the demise of UKRC in the engineering trade press -they spoke to academics not those they should do.
UKRC accounts clearly show just how little of the millions of public money they took went on activities to promote engineering I was told by a staff member that they focussed on science because engineering was a 'harder nut to crack'. Since when has there been a shortage of girls taking biology and chemistry? I was angry that at return to work events they were encouraging women in SET to become teachers not to address the industry skills shortage that they use to justify their existence when they need to. They got a mothhood and apple pie 'charter' signed by a few companies -big deal! What did they really do with SEMTA; eskills; IET; IMechE; EEF; Intellect etc to change things? For my field -electronics like this MP whom I've never seen at an IET or IEEE event - the number of women who become chartered in electronics and computing with the IET and BCS combined is less than 40 per year. This is no different than the 1980s and hasn't improved over the 13 excruciating years of the last government. The current government is right to cut the LSC; RDAs and many other organisations that undermined the trade and professional bodies that existed before them. Is Cambridge thriving, how many companies have listed recently? Ask Intellect how many tens of thousands of electronics jobs have been lost?
All the stats about
I am utterly relieved that UKRC has had its funding cut and will no longer deliberately starve WES; MentorSET; DJT of funds to grow and profile with the profession. Knowledgeable volunteers like me with real passion for engineering and who took part in the launch of WISE and Get SET etc - can finally do what we believe in without them trying to take credit for it and tell it how it is for women. Dont bemoan the effect on engineering when that was the one thing UKRC utterly failed to address -prove otherwise!

Ben Hale
on January 18, 2011 3:35 PM

I am genuinely dismayed to read this article and associated comments, only to find an insidious blame culture has taken root amongst the author and contributors.
What does the "the softer female approach to alternative appropriate engineering" mean? Does it infer an opposing "hard male approach", which would be a generalisation about an entire sex? I thought that making generalisations about a separate group ran contra to the mantra of equality? Or is it OK when talking about men?
As an RAF officer, in an egalitarian service with a heavy science and technology bent to it, I work every day with women who have reached higher rank unimpeded by the 'obstacles' hinted at in this article and these comments.
Let us all compete on a level playing field with no special treatment for men, women, the disabled, visible ethnic minorities etc. If you are a person who has lost out on a job/promotion to someone else who is better qualified, (academic qualifications or experience) - don't cry sexism, make yourself better qualified instead!!

Helena Twigg
on January 22, 2011 7:21 PM

I was until recently a R&D engineer in electronics. I left to retrain in forensic science, with the hope that I could marry the two fields together and work on designing new forensic tools. However this plan didn't work and after a couple of failed excursions into forensics, I decided to return to electronics R&D. I found that technology had moved on and that the areas in which I held expertise were no longer wanted - result, I couldn't get a job. I decided to take a career break and have a child so it has now been five years since I last worked in technology and I don't expect that I will ever be able to return because my skills are so out of date.